> You seem to presume: 1) the costs of a PWD-offered solution > are predominately attributable > to the cost of the selected mainframe virtual machine, and 2) > there is no reason for IBM's > management to prefer one solution over another, and 3) that > the solutions are exchangable.
Actually, if you're willing to share the breakdown in your costs between HW, emulation and IBM software, I'd be very interested in seeing it. With regard to your other two points, I'll agree that we hold differing opinions -- the work we have done with Hercules has proved it sufficient for our needs, which at the end of the day, is what most people decide on. If this were a perfect world, perhaps things might be different, but for my needs, Hercules is quite sufficient. > The irony of your reply is we are talking about a development > environment for a commercial > version of sendmail, a product which, using the analysis > you've supplied here, would have > little to say for itself even though we know it has a valued > place in the Linux enterprise > firmament. As far as I can tell, IBM has yet to hear from > even one developer of commercial > software who would otherwise meet the conditions of software > loan that the present PWD > offering is prohibitive. Here's where I think we're missing each other. You are talking specifically about commercial development. Sure, Sendmail, Inc probably has enough cash to afford a medium-sized FlexES based solution. I don't doubt that it would be a good choice for them. I'm talking about the one-man shops and the shops that need an occasional test system or a small development system that are NOT in the business of producing mass-market software. *Those* people can reasonably afford one or two fairly high-powered PCs, but not necessarily a dedicated system just for emulated 390 HW, and their budget for tools and toys does not extend to chunks of cash > $10K. While this may not seem to be a desirable market, I'd argue that this is the marketplace that has driven the survival of Windows -- and of Linux Intel -- and if the 390 is to continue to play a large role or attract new developers and new applications, then these people are the ones you need to court and attract, not the big vendors. Consider also the success of the LCDS -- IBM has other offerings for ISVs to do porting, etc, and when Joe Dempster and I started campaigning for a open development system, all sorts of hissy fits were thrown about lost revenue, but eventually we prevailed on IBM to make the system open to everyone without charge. It's the small shops that have driven the LCDS to succeed. Why? Because they can get access to a interesting technology like a genuine 390 w/o a huge investment (from their perspective). Did IBM make money on that? No... but that's exactly what we're discussing here -- a method to gain some additional revenue without a lot of additional expense, and that benefits IBM by a) showing that they're serious about attracting new developers and new blood to the 390 platform, and b) forestalling a piracy problem in the making by making it easy to *be* legal and aboveboard (avoiding the RIAA mistake with MP3 files: letting technology get so far ahead of them that they can't put the genie back in the bottle). Most people are basically honest and will be reasonable about licensing if their wallets can support it. IBM has to make the ADCDs anyway for the PID folks, and I don't see anything wrong with giving the PID folks nice hardware discounts and other perks that CD-only licensees don't get. I'm trying to make a case that IBM should offer the ADCD for licensing and use elsewhere at a reasonable price for a small developer. That was the point of my comment earlier -- if I could license the ADCD for a price in the ballpark of buying the MS development tools (plus or minus 10-15% or so), I'd buy a legal copy for each of my developers, and both IBM and I walk away from the deal happy (and I'd bet that the ADCD production process will get somewhat cheaper due to economies of scale). I'm getting tools I need and want at a price I can afford, and IBM is getting good revenue and a proactive stance on controlling their rights to their software without having to do negative stuff like go sue people. > I can assure you that were you able to convince IBM of a need > for a developer platform and > deployment model addressing a developer class beyond those > who qualify for its program > today, then Flex-ES could be packaged to meet that need > within the bounds of costs you > yourself have declared reasonable for such developers to pay. OK, I'll put it out in the open. Can you provide a software only FlexES package including the ADCD license in the $2.5-3K range? If so, then we should talk seriously about it. If not, then see above for the argument that there are people that do not fit the current program and cannot afford to participate. -- db
